Shell says biofuels from food crops "morally inappropriate"

Reuters ^ | 7/11/06 | Staff

[Millee]

Let's see, what else:

NEA says home schooling "morally inappropriate".
PETA says eating "morally inappropriate".
Planned Parenthood says safe sex "morally inappropriate".

[cripplecreek]

Shell dictating morality now.

[teenyelliott]

Democrats think keeping your own money is "morally inappropriate".

[TexasCajun]

NEA says "Two mommies or Two daddies A-OK"

[kittycatonline.com]

Of course it's morally inappropriate to use GM crops for fuel, it's far better to feed the starving. Oh wait, never mind, tried that. I think the statement from Shell is more like "We don't have much going on in the way of agriculture, so we'll stick to oil, thank you."

[cripplecreek]

Morality = not much chance of us getting a patent.

[Grampa Dave]

Would you please repost the cartoon showing how much gasoline and other fuel are necessary to produce a gallon of this stuff.

Thanks and please ping me when you post it.

[elli1]

I'll say that it would seem to make more sense to look to waste products as resources for fuel production.

[Doohickey]

Idiots. No famine in recorded human history has been caused by lack of food. Famines are caused by government meddling.

[KSCITYBOY]

I'm telling you now when there is more widespread use of bio fuels the 'environmentalist" will use this 'moral objection" to stop it's use. They don't care about environmental issues they really just want to destroy capitalism.

[VOA]

I wonder what the shareholders will say about Shell getting into
the religion bidness.

Well, if it keeps their stock price on the rise...I suppose they'll
be all for it!

[aruanan]

Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving, an executive said on Thursday.

It's a good enough argument. The use of biofuels, especially made from food crops, is primarily from political motives. At the same time, we could make the argument that using coal and other chemical substances for fuel to make electricity is morally inappropriate because they can be used for so many other things than just burning up. We should use radioactive elements for generating electricity because, unlike carbon compounds, they cannot be made into anything useful like plastics. So the environmentalists who are really interested in the best use of resources should be first and foremost in favor of nuclear energy.

[VOA]

Shell's Worst Nightmare:
A world in which you pay $3.00 for a cob of corn at your market...
but pump $1.00/gallon biodiesel (or other alternative fuel) they don't
totally control.

[cripplecreek]

There's a station near me that sells biodiesel. The owners doesn't have any problem selling it, his big problem is the fact that he can't get enough.

[cripplecreek]

There's a station near me that sells biodiesel. The owners doesn't have any problem selling it, his big problem is the fact that he can't get enough.

[VOA]

So the environmentalists who are really interested in the best use of resources
should be first and foremost in favor of nuclear energy.

So true and clear...it just had to be repeated

[ConorMacNessa]

What's "morally inappropriate" is the price of oil.

[idkfa]

I'm waiting to see the dilemma the enviromentalists have when the rain forest is cut down to produce bio fuels.

[pookie18]

[Gingersnap]

Whether or not biofuels are actually cost effective, the starving-children argument makes no sense at all.

Farmers aren't selling beets to fuel producers instead of shipping them to Africa. They are growing beets for the purpose of making sugar or fuel.

The food aid that goes to Africa and other countries is stolen by the very people set to distribute it to the starving children. I don't see how a corporate decision on source material for fuel will affect starving children one way or another.